Rather, “We value X positively, and Y negatively; anarchy at least enables X and inhibits Y, while the state at least inhibits X and guarantees Y; therefore we should have anarchy.”
Because I want Z.
But why would I even want Z?
And so on.
But how do we break the infinite regression?
Well, we just keep going until we hit our “ultimate values”!
Wouldn’t it be less misleading to say “I would want to be conscious, because it makes my values possible”?
(Because even committing suicide requires you to be conscious!)
Yeah, that would probably be more accurate.
Whose life? Eating you for dinner could be very high on my list of values. My values were based on facts, does this make them “objective”?
Z.
Right, and the “end” of that chain is life because all choices and values lead to either your existence (life) or nonexistence (death). It’s not just that life makes values possible.
Depends how far you trace the basis of your values.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “I would want to be conscious, because it makes my values possible”?
Here’s a rough illustration of that.
Who appointed you to be the (objective?) judge of my values’ “objectivity”? Just for kicks, how far must I trace the basis of my values so they become “objective”?
Z.
I never did judge the objectivity of your values, though. A value would be objective if you trace it back as far as possible until you determine if it would, in the long-term, lead to furtherence of your life. That’s the objective standard because life is the only standard possible in order to allow values to be objectively defined by you as an individual.
I don’t understand. How could tracing back determine a long-term future outcome? What if eating you meant that you won’t be eating me for dinner? And wouldn’t this require omniscience, or a conduit to God or some other such adviser?
Also, I ask again: Whose life? What’s wrong (and who says?) with valuing future outcomes that exclude my existence? Can’t I value my daughter’s life (or any other future state of affairs) more than my own life, i.e. regardless of whether I live to experience it?
Z.
By “trace back” I meant figuring out the hierarchy of values, or in other words, what each of your values depend upon. Then from that information, eventually you’ll be able to determine what impact a certain value would have on your life. A lot of the time, only you as an individual can decide ultimately if a value is good, but hopefully you’d use a standard similar to how you probably have certain standards in order to determine if an argument is wrong.
Whose life? Your own. You COULD value your daughter’s life more than your own, but the important question is why. Valuing future outcomes that exclude your existence is silly, since there’s no way to value those outcomes once you are dead. It’s not a matter of “who says?” That’s like saying “who says that the Earth revolves around the sun?” No one “says”, it’s just a fact that values that lead to the hindrance of life are harmful, and therefore wrong to pursue because that’s the only measure possible that can indicate whether one value is more beneficial to you than another value.
Another praxeological insight, value structures change as wants are satisfied and/or other conditions change.
As LS suggested, there’s no such thing as “the hierarchy of values”. What do you mean by “what each of your values depend upon.”? Why can’t I just value A over B, period?
So “no chocolate + longer life” is objectively a better value than “chocolate + shorter life”?
No one can decide my subjective values but me. My standard for deciding so can also be nothing but subjectively mine. Any conclusion can be arrived at by applying sound logic (arguments) on top of conveniently chosen premises. What’s objective about that?
Silly, to whom? You said you were not going to be the (objective?) judge of my subjective values. Why couldn’t I value a future-outcome now? Why must I value it then? Because I wouldn’t want to look silly to you?
Like, chocolate? Whiskey? Cigars? Sex before marriage? Sure about that?
I had no idea what Objectivism was before this thread, but the more I learn about it, the more it smells like just another religious dogma.
Z.
I said “if the majority found such action acceptable”, hence no power would be necessary to coerce the majority into anything. The majority would be eating the red-haired for dinner purely because they freely chose to do so. Furthermore, no arbitrator who presumably would like to continue doing business there would adjudicate against an action which is so strongly preferred by the majority. No state required, I’m afraid.
Z.
How’s that silly?
As he said, he might care now how his daughter is doing later, even if he’s not around to see it.
For a typical example, if right now he believes that setting up a trust fund for his daughter would mean her doing well later, and he wants her to do well later, then obviously he would want to set up the trust fund. And, when he sees the trust fund set up, in a sense now he sees his daughter doing well in the future! And that’s not silly at all. I mean, wouldn’t you want to do something now to promote your daughter’s well-being in the future? Or would you not care even now where your daughter will be when you’re dead? Of course you wouldn’t care once your dead. But wouldn’t you care right now? We’re not talking about then. No, we’re talking about right at this moment.
It should have said your hierarchy of values, not “The” hierarchy as though apples are always superior to chocolate for all people. By “depend upon”, I mean things exactly like stated before, “If I value Y, and X leads to Y, I should value X.” Basically, I’m agreeing with everything stated about human action here. I’m only disputing that objective values are impossible. You can have whatever hierarchy you want, doesn’t mean it’s going to be a good idea.
Well, by life I don’t mean the number of years you exist, I also mean a flourishing life. A dying tree is alive in a literal sense, but it’s only on the way soon enough to its death.
I don’t know if chocolate + longer life is objectively better for you, since I don’t know anything about you. Personal context is important; some people are allergic to chocolate.
See, I think the dispute here is just the word “subjective”. If you find out, by your own mind, that water allows plants to grow, that’s objective. Even though it’s up to you to decide if that fact is valid. The word objective basically just means that a conclusion is based on facts rather than your emotions as a standard. “I feel that chocolate chip cookies taste great, therefore, I should eat as many cookies as possible.” That’s an emotional standard. If you want to use that, fine. It’s not very informative though. “I know that chocolate chip cookies bring happiness to me plus there are no adverse health effects, so I should pursue acquiring cookies.” That’s an objective standard, basically. Lots of cookies can bring problems though, and if you’re diabetic, maybe even more problems. I don’t have a problem with the word subjective, as long as you accept that you can validate ideas against some standard.
Chocolate, whiskey, cigars, and sex before marriage aren’t always harmful to your life. Usually, they provide a means of furthering your life, you know. I tried to point out before, I think, that determining what is bad or good isn’t something apart from the valuer. I can’t say that chocolate is good and leave it at that. Good for whom? That is the proper question to ask, which you did ask. What is good for you though? Anything that improves your life in the long-term (for reasons I said earlier). That varies when you consider individual differences. There are also some things that apply to all people though, such as thinking in order to evaluate the world, like what food to eat.
Responding to I. Ryan:
There’s nothing wrong with providing that sort of thing for one’s own daughter, it would likely help some sort of bond in the present and in the future. There’s no immediate answer I can give. I also see no point in ideas like “I want to have kids so my memory will live on” though, since you wouldn’t even be able to care about memory of you when you’re dead. That’s the sort of thing I was thinking of.
But whether it’s going to be a good idea always eventually comes down to your ultimate values.
(By the way, your ultimate values might change over the course your life. I’m not saying that they’re always the same.)
So anarchism is completely consistent with Objectivism?
You missed a more important aspect: Even my own hierarchy (which you accept may be different from others’) now is not the same from before and will not be the same in the future. My hierarchy of values before achieving an end may be completely different from the one after. And this dynamics has nothing whatsoever to do with convergence toward some mystical (ultimate? objective? omniscient?) hierarchy of values that supposedly produces the ultimately flourishing, rewarding, fulfilled, happy life. Talk to Dalai Lama about that one.
Not doing too splendid a job of it, though. No such things as an objective value. The fact that plants need water is not a value, objective or otherwise.
I don’t have to accept that. Neither do you. A diabetic can perfectly rationally decide to keep eating cookies until he dies. Btw, have you looked at someone’s brain and seen an “emotional” sector clearly separated from a “rational” one?
What makes you think that thinking is necessarily (and always!) better for you than not thinking? Ignorance is never bliss? Says who?
Z.